Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday November 08, 2012 @06:20PM
from the what-the-market-will-bear dept.

TheSync writes "In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the New York State Attorney General has subpoenaed Craigslist, demanding that the site identify more than 100 sellers whose prices on post-Sandy gas, generators and other supplies were of an 'unconscionably excessive price' during an emergency. AG Eric Schneiderman said: 'Our office has zero tolerance for price gouging [and] will do everything we can to stop unscrupulous individuals from taking advantage of New Yorkers trying to rebuild their lives.'"

You know what else guarantees shortages? FEMA diverting shipments from gas stations to FEMA and state distribution points, where it gets doled out for free to the politically connected. Plenty of gas at the one near my house (and it's available all the time, though the gas stations are closed after 6pm whether they have fuel or no fuel by order of our fascist mayor), none for regular old peons.

apparently they tried to stop shortages by outlawing "hoarding". They arrested a guy and confiscated gasoline because he collected from neighbors and went beyond the gas shortages to bring back gas to them. The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

apparently they tried to stop shortages by outlawing "hoarding". They arrested a guy and confiscated gasoline because he collected from neighbors and went beyond the gas shortages to bring back gas to them. The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

His "crime" was showing by his example how passive and lazy most other people were. Most people who are embarassed by a better example seek revenge, as though their lackluster ability to plan for eventualities is the fault of anyone else; this is just a collective form of such childishness codified into law. Too many think the government is going to make it all better so they don't keep some emergency supplies on hand to be prepared, even when they could afford to. It's not that they are so stupid. It's that they feel so privileged, that concern for their own well-being should be someone else's job.

Incidentally, getting what you can and then sharing it with your neighbors is the very opposite of hoarding. Not only should the charge be thrown out, the law enforcement officer who issued it should be fired.

Umm, no. His crime was filling 30 5-gallon Home Depot buckets with gas, because Home Depot buckets are not made for or approved for holding/transporting gasoline. But don't let that get in the way of your (and the GP's) conspiracy theories.

Umm, no. His crime was filling 30 5-gallon Home Depot buckets with gas, because Home Depot buckets are not made for or approved for holding/transporting gasoline. But don't let that get in the way of your (and the GP's) conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories? Maybe there is a conspiracy preventing you from comprehending what you read. See the post I originally replied to? Well, you see, it contained this line:

The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

Feel free to peruse the original post [slashdot.org] to which I replied, if you don't believe me.
The charge was hoarding supplies. The charge was NOT incorrect containers for gasoline (which I agree is a bad, unsafe idea but as I have now spelled out for you, is completely irrelevant).

I don't know the deal in the US. But in NZ all purpose does not mean dangerous substances. Having worked at a gas station I know we are not permitted to let anyone fill just any old container, it must have the proper markings that make it safe for gasoline. In our case that typically means a grade of plastic that won't dissolve and must also be conductive to avoid static discharges. There are clear laws about what must be on the container that signifies that its compliant.

Price controls have exactly the same effect in an emergency that they have at any other time. If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.

The NY AG is a politician. He just wants to be on record, and in the news, as "doing something" about price gouging. Whether that "something" is helpful, useless or counter productive does not really matter to voters. Politicians in the US seem to be graded on their stated intentions not their actual results.

Politicians in the US seem to be graded on their stated intentions not their actual results.

This is so true. Reagan massively increased the size of the government and ran up huge deficits. Bill Clinton kicked millions off of welfare, and balanced the budget. Yet Reagan is champion of the right, and Clinton of the left, because their talk was the opposite of their actions.

and yet the biggest problem was that the stations had no power to pump the gas. Thus no sale is possible.

WRONG! The sale was possible. They could have scrambled to get a generator, even if they had to pay double the price for it, or had it trucked in by overnight express. They could have made it happen. But they didn't because it would have been illegal for them to recover their cost by charging the market price (what the market will bear). They had no incentive. Why should they spend money and work hard if they can't make more than they would if they just sat on the gas till the electricity came back

When gas is cheap, many use it incorrectly (for an emergency scenario); idling for an hour to "keep the engine warm", using it for lighter fluid, driving a block away, etc. when it's expensive, it's treated as precious.

There is no such thing as "use it incorrectly". You use it as the price allows.

By the same token, you'd have no such thing as "gouging" - You price it as (high as) scarcity and demand allows.

The whole concept of "price gouging" makes absolutely no sense to me. If I stock up on emergency supplies, specifically hoping to sell them in an emergency at a profit, hey, call me scum, but where the fuck does the government have a place in regulating the sale of a legal product between two private parties?

Or perhaps a better analogy, all of health care - A dying man will pay anything for the cure. Why doesn't charging him an arm and a leg (for a drug that costs pennies) count as a form of "full-time gouging"?

The supply was already scarce due to the supply chain being broken (most ports closed, roads impassable) and widespread demand

If the price goes up, that provides a massive incentive for suppliers to find alternate routes, including routes that wouldn't be economical under normal prices, or fix existing routes quickly. When the road's blocked, it becomes worthwhile to put in the labor to clear the road yourself because there's a payout waiting for you. If you can't charge anything extra, maybe you wait for the government to come in and clear the road, which could take days or weeks.

Exactly -- this is the point that people are missing, the supply end of the price curve.

If gas were being sold for $8/gallon in New York (a price that's not that exorbitant, given that it's close to what it costs in half of Europe), everyone and their dog would be buying it elsewhere and bringing it to NYC, driving the price back down. Or some gas station would realize "Y'know, if we just sit on an extra stash, we can make some money next time one of these storms comes through". The more something costs the

1. need doesn't translate into entitlement.2. These last three storms (irene, sandy, and that nor'easter we had) should be convincing americans in general that this march towards centralization of command and control (FEMA, DHS etc) is a BAD idea. we should be moving towards distributed/self sufficiency as much as possible. of course this isn't what the ideologues in DC want..

I sincerely hope that you come out of this unscathed, but perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here as well. don't wait for the n

But if it were (price gouging) expensive, then it would be EVEN MORE SCARCE.

Wrong.

The high price is the signal to 1) reduce consumption and 2) increase supply. If gasoline is selling for 2x in the disaster area, then it's worthwhile for vendors to divert supplies to that area. If some pinhead politician is preventing a vendor from charging more than the price before the disaster, then why would they bother?

People needed these supplies.

Which is EXACTLY why imposing a price limit was a brain-dead thing to d

Think of it from the suppliers prospective. If they can sell the gas at $100/gallon, they can afford to do whatever it takes to get it to the area. If it's only $4/gallon, they need to wait to repair the existing pipeline pumping stations or whatever before they can make it available.

You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier. In reality, the supplier needs to set a price so that demand will match what they're able to supply, otherwise they will have shortages and they'll have to t

If the supply is low and the demand is high, as it is in an emergency, the price increases as demand outstrips supply. If you make the gas artificially cheap, the demand will increase to a level where it can't be met, so most people won't have gas.

An illustration, from Gwartney and Stroup. TL;DR: If ice is going for $10 a pound, you'll have people trucking it in from out of state. If you declare that illegal "price gouging," your grocer won't be able to keep his inventory from spoiling at any price.

In the fall of 1989 Hurricane Hugo struck the coast of South Carolina, causing massive property damage and widespread power outages lasting for weeks. The lack of electric power meant that gasoline pumps, refrigerators, cash registers, ATMs, and many other types of electrical equipment did not work. In the hardest hit coastal areas such as Charleston, the demand for such items as lumber, gasoline, ice, batteries, chain saws, and electric generators increased dramatically. Stores that remained open using backup gasoline-powered generators sold out of most items immediately. Goods that began to flow in from other cities were being sold by some sellers at much higher prices. A bag of ice that sold for $1 before the hurricane went up in price to as much as $10, plywood went up in price to about $200 per sheet, and gasoline sold for as much as $10.95 per gallon. Individual citizens from other states were renting trucks, buying supplies in their home state, driving them to Charleston, and making enough money to pay for the rental truck and the purchase of the goods, and to compensate them for taking time off from their regular jobs.

In response to consumer complaints of "price gouging," the mayor of Charleston signed emergency legislation making it a crime, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $200 fine, to sell goods at prices higher than their pre-hurricane levels in the city. The price ceilings kept prices down, but also stopped the flow of goods into the area almost immediately. Shippers of items such as ice would stop outside the harder hit Charleston area, to avoid the price controls, and sell their goods. Shipments that did make it into the Charleston area were often greeted by long lines of consumers, many of whom would end up without the good after waiting in line for up to five hours. Shortages became so bad that military guards were required to protect the goods and maintain order when a shipment did arrive.

The price controls resulted in serious allocations of resources such as electricity, which, during the emergency, could only be gotten from emergency generators. Grocery stores could not fully open because of the lack of electric power, and inside the stores, food items were spoiling--thousands of dollars' worth, in some stores. Gasoline pumps require electricity to operate, so, although there was fuel in the underground tanks, there was a shortage of gasoline because of the inability to pump it. Consumers were faced with problems of obtaining money, as ATMs and banks could not operate without electric power. Hardware stores that sold electric generators before the hurricane typically had only a few in stock, but suddenly hundreds of businesses and residents wanted to buy them. The price ceilings would not allow the store owners to ration the few generators they had by raising the price, so the owners had to allocate the sale of their generators in other ways. It was not uncommon for the owner fo the store to take one generator home, and to sell the others to his or her friends. While these families used the generators for household uses, gasoline stations, grocery stores, and banks were closed because of their inability to buy a generator. Thousands of consumers could not get goods they urgently wanted because these businesses were closed. Without price controls, we would expect the price of generators to be bid up to the point that they would (a) be purchased by those who had the most urgent uses for them, and (b) be imported into the city rapidly enough to keep the price from rising still further.

The secondary impacts of the price controls used during Hurricane Hugo in Charleston, South Carolina, highlight the importance of understanding economics and the role of prices in our economy. Despite pleas from economists in local newspapers and in The Wall Street Journal, the price controls remained in effect, increasing the suffering and retarding the recovery of the areas most severely damaged by the hurricane.

If the gas was cheap, many would buy it. So they would have gas. With the price gouging the prices are exorbitantly high, so few can obtain it.

These people increased the scarcity of these items (buy buying large quantities for themselves) to try to extort money from people who needed them. Regardless of what your hero Ayn might think, a completely free enterprise doesn't always work.

You are sooo unimaginative.

Everything you say would be true -- if supplies were normal. They aren't. It costs more to bring supplies into a disaster area, believe it or not. Prices are a very simple fact of life: when demand exceeds supply, they rise, and when supplies exceed demand, they drop.

So with dwindling supplies, prices rise. Note carefully: humans CAN NOT CONTROL prices artificially. The money price may be legally limited, but all that means is that the time or effort price rises. People wait in line or bribe suppliers to get first dibs.

Why aren't more supplies brought in? Because it costs more, in money and time and effort, and if they can't get paid correspondingly more for that effort, they aren't going to lose money just to be noble.

If the government had kept its paws off, the price would rise enough to bring in more supplies.

Supplies are always rationed one way or another. Even in normal times, there is a cost of production and distribution, and that limits supplies.

In bad times, when supplies dwindle, the government can force rationing in ugly ways by forcing the money price so low that more supplies are not brought in. Then rationing goes by who is willing to wait in line, or knows the right people, or has the extra money to bribe. Whereas if money prices were left alone, prices would rise, and rationing would be by money price.

You are just another one of those unthinking idiots who suppose that passing laws accomplishes something, no matter how illogical. Ban alcohol? Sure that worked. Ban drugs? Guns? Price rises? All the same, pass a law, mission accomplished.

Don't equate rationing with price controls... when you can identify the consumers and limit their consumption rationing works just fine, ignoring some inevitable corruption, you do this when social stability is preferred over market efficiency. This got the UK (and a lot of other countries) through WW2.

How absurd. Supply and demand apply more in a "crisis" than they do normally - Normally, we have an effectively infinite supply throttled only by the cost of production and the available demand. In a crisis, you actually do have limited supply, which makes it not just desirable for the seller, but for the buyer as well to price at the intersection of the supply and demand curves. Lower than that causes shortages.

No, by charging 15 dollars more, they are making it unattainable by the hardest hit and most in need.

Everyone has their own definition of need. How do you define it -- as those with the least money? That's as arbitrary as even/odd license plate numbers. "Hardest hit" and "most in need" are cute phrases meant to wring tears of empathy but devoid of meaning.

The attitude that the government can control prices is right up there with King Canute trying to control the tides. At least he knew he couldn't; you still need to learn basic economics. Whether price is measured in dollars, hours, bribes, or family

Supply and demand doesn't go away when you don't like the results, just like gravity and physical attractiveness.

There were physical breaks in the supply line. Trickle down economics doesn't overcome a tree blocking the road.

This has nothing to do with "trickle down", this is basic supply and demand. At $3.50/gal it's worth sending a truck out, at $10 a gallon it's worth it to send a crew out to clear streets, a better truck to take th

Haha I was thinking something similar. They're after price gougers in the aftermath of a natural disaster, but the everyday gougers walk free.
Some nanny state.

An emergency situation lowers the barriers to entry; now anyone with a little foresight who can plan ahead (a minority, but anyone who wants to can do it) can do it. But it's spontaneous and it isn't business as usual. So it stands out.

Everyday gougers tend to be politically connected. They tend to have lobbyists. The very finest example is the RIAA - once an initial investment is made, their cost to make perfect copies is marginal at most. The rest is entirely artificial scarcity. So they made cer

That's not gouging, that's just costs resulting in a higher price. Gouging is when you increase your margin (sometimes by orders of magnitude) in order to take advantage of people being desperate and shell shocked. It results in miss-allocation of resources.

No-one is arguing that goods are more difficult to come by in an emercency, and suppliers often have higher costs when source goods. It is normal and reasonable to then pass those costs on to the consumers.

The issue is when the price increase far outweighs the increased costs, and becomes "'unconscionably excessive". Given the emergency nature, this is hugely immoral.

That immorality insures continued supply. Human beings are motivated by profits, primarily. If there is a lot of money to be made, it will make people get off their asses and get to providing. Stupid laws like this discourage people from doing so, meaning that only those who skirt the law will fill the void, raising prices and introducing violence, fraud, etc.

You have to understand that everything you think you know about morality is just plain wrong. Backwards. Destructive. But who cares, at least

The interesting thing about this whole episode is that, despite no obvious interventions by the state, the market itself failed to raise prices to clear the market. [marginalrevolution.com]

In shortages like this, the logistics of gasoline make it difficult to really up capacity even by significant price raises. The gasoline market is highly segmented. It's not very easy to divert supplies from elsewhere and ship gasoline in the quantities needed, unlike with things like food and water.

It was stupid. I am in Jersey City. One of the most affected gas shortage areas.

If I owned a gas station, I would have turned it into a "club" gas station. I would have charged $50 to enter my property for the right to buy gas. Then charge normal price. Price gouging is the best way to handle the situation. Like you said, it would have made all the suppliers send gas to the area, because it would have been more profitible for them. But instead you enforce this idea of "government only" solutions: pri

This is exactly what was wrong with Romney et al's stance on FEMA. If there's a profit motive, then you're going to get the highest possible cost for the least possible value of goods and services. Where there's reasonable infrastructure, competition can reduce that, but a post-hurricane disaster zone is more likely to resemble turf-based economies (drugs, prostitution) than it is to resemble truly competitive markets (e.g. bazaars).

If your kid is at home coughing up a lung due to a flu and there's no heat in the house, and if phone lines and emergency services are basically unavailable because of the greater circumstance, you're going to buy that last can of chicken soup from your corner market rather than shopping around for a better deal further away. Call it supply and demand if you will, but shopkeepers who engaged in price gouging are profiteering off of others' misery, plain and simple, and there should be consequences.

On the other hand, there are stories of great generosity, like the pizzeria that kept making pies throughout the peak of the crisis, and gave away something on the order of 1000 pizzas to hungry families and emergency workers. That business deserves to prosper. I hope that some anonymous millionaire hands them an envelope containing ten times the profit they would have made had they sold all those pizzas. Hell, maybe FEMA should cut them a check for helping out. At the very least, they should be able to write those costs off for tax purposes.

you're going to buy that last can of chicken soup from your corner market rather than shopping around for a better deal further away

Except, when prices are allowed to rise, if you *really need* that can it is still available. If the store is forced to keep it at their normal price, the can would have been gone hours before you got there, to some random person who could have done just as well with a can of ravioli.

On top of that, higher prices help hasten the recovery. If the price of canned food is allowed to rise in the disaster area, some enterprising person outside but nearby the disaster area is going to head to his local supermarket, buy 500 cans of food for $2/ea, load then into his pickup truck, drive 100 miles to the disaster area, and sell them for $4/ea. The area now has 500 more cans of food than if you'd forced the price to remain at $3/ea. If the price went up to $10/ea, then you'd have hundreds if n

or for individuals to sell generators that they had bought before the storm at double their retail value.

By making that illegal it becomes better for someone who has an extra generator to simply not sell it. While the generator would be doing no one any good, it is still available to the person holding it in case he needs it - to him the $700 generator is worth $1400 (the risk of needing it and not having it is worth $700 to him) but by not being allowed to sell it at that price, he would be taking a perceived loss for no reason. I fail to see how this is better than allowing supply/demand to take over.

As for gas, keep in mind this is the NY metro area. Very few people actually *need* gas. If the prices at the stations were allowed to rise to $10, people who do need the gas would be able to get it, and people who don't would take the bus/railroad/subway. Right now, the commodity being sacrificed is time: people who have more time on their hands and can sit on a line for 5 hours are better able to get gas than those working 3 jobs. How is that right?

As for gas, keep in mind this is the NY metro area. Very few people actually *need* gas. If the prices at the stations were allowed to rise to $10, people who do need the gas would be able to get it, and people who don't would take the bus/railroad/subway.

At the very least, they should be able to write those costs off for tax purposes.

This is a common misconception. They could write off those costs for tax purposes if they made 1000 pizzas and dumped them in the garbage, or if they took $1000 in cash and set it on fire.

Businesses are taxed on the amount they take in minus the amount they spend. So, any kind of spending reduces their taxes, regardless of purpose. Now, for some purposes they could get other kinds of tax benefits like reductions in property taxes or state sales taxes on their purchases.

You are an idiot. The only way to take advantage of the problem is to provide a solution. The only way to make a lot of money on providing a solution is to provide a solution where no other solution exists. These people provided gas which wasn't available from any other source. They deserved whatever money they charged.

If these were ads from storefront businesses then the AG should get involved, but if it was private individuals reselling items at a market price then I don't see a real case here for prosecution. I own a hardware store and we have been crazy busy these past two weeks trying to keep up with demand for batteries, gas cans, generators, extension cords, and other storm goods. Our prices are the same today as they were a month ago, and in fact some of our batteries are on sale and we kept them on sale. I know of a few stores that did raise their prices on generators and some other goods, seems like a poor decision as the customer will likely find out later (or already knew) and will remember that price gouge when choosing where to shop during "normal" times.

Everybody who solves a problem takes advantage of the fact that the problem exists. If the private merchants solved the problem that NY state could not, the state owes them a thank you -- not a subpoena. Oh, and what an ass hole.

Allowing price gouging post disaster can be very dangerous because it exacerbates any shortages. No only are people in need vying for scare resources but price gougers who buy and hold much more than they individually need in an effort to reap a profit on resale. This causes more gouging and hoarding as people become scared that prices will increase. The ultimate result is that people will go without and possibly die while resources go unused.

Gouging is not 100% efficient- gouger's will inevitably buy and store more than they sell and still make a profit. Furthermore gouging causes people to hoard. If I know that gas will remain a roughly the same price it is now and likely return to normal in a week or so, I am probably just going to fill the tanks in all my cars and maybe get a small jerrycan before the storm. If I think gas will rocket to $20/gallon after the storm I am going to buy a 500 gallon tank rush to the pumps and suck them dry bef

Assume I live in western PA where generators and gas are plentiful. I load 10 of them in my truck, fill them up with gas and drive to NJ and try to sell them. What if I want $1000 a piece for them even though I only paid $500 for them. What if I live in NJ and made a round trip to western PA instead to get them. Am I gouging or am I helping someone out? What if I try to sell them for $2000? If I get arrested for selling them for anything over $500, where is my incentive to attempt to bring supplies

The 9th Rule of Acquisition says "Opportunity plus instinct equals profit."
Your moogie obviously hasn't taught you in between chewing your toothgrubs. You definitely don't have the lobes. You have been corrupted by those humon concepts like decency. The FCA liquidators are on their way to bankrupt you.

Everything else is determined by a thumb war between Mayor Bloomberg and an 19 year old russian model from Brighton Beachwho is 6'2" and weighs 2.35lbs, Referreed by Bill Clinton and an overweight Jewish Malcom X impersonator named Herschel.

If they are artificially high, then no trade takes place, as there are other offers available. If they are artificially low (ie free gas from FEMA), then the supply rapidly runs out, then no-one has any gas, no matter how much they need it.

Which was this guy doing? The one that hurts no-one, or the one who hurts everyone?

That free fuel would be in limited amounts per person if the disaster workers had the common sense to survive to adulthood. Assuming that they do not is a pointless distraction and really tells us more about yourself than anything to do with the discussion.

As a criminal offense, Florida's law is typical [myfloridalegal.com]. Price gouging [wikipedia.org] may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. It is a defense to show that the price increase mostly reflects increased costs, such as running an emergency generator, or hazard pay for workers.

The net been up but no gas, people using tech to seek/buy/trade/the comments about what the 'gas' can be traded for.... the type of person and picture needed to even be considered in some listings.
People boasting they have deep supply lines and saved up supply (not a person with a few cans at home ie commercial ownership with clear local/federal laws in time of need). They kept gas back for 'special' deals for a subset of woman and not for "cash".
So you have the net been used, images having to be sent u

Why aren't they subpoena'ing Bloomberg, who set up much-needed generators for a marathon rather than to help the people who needed it?

-- Ethanol-fueled

Actually, I think it was the private race organizers that had the generators.

But even if they turned the generators over to the city, what would the city do with them? Just parking a generator in front of an apartment building does nothing to help the residents. Do you just let residents run extension cords out their windows?

Was there an actual shortage of mid-range generators that could be used safely? (I'm not talking about a 1KW generator that someone may put on his balcony, fueled by carrying cans of ga

Actually, I think it was the private race organizers that had the generators.

Yes it was, until they were shamed by the New York Post. They suggested that they be donated or at least lent to the recovery effort in some way. Even though the race was cancelled, the generators still just sat there in the park. Bloomberg, as a mayor and billionaire, is the kind of person who probably could have arranged for the generators to be commandeered, but he didn't, and neither did anyone else. (I'm not judging, especially because there's probably more to the story.)

Actually, I think it was the private race organizers that had the generators.

Yes it was, until they were shamed by the New York Post.

Actually, I think it was the Mayor who wanted the race to go on, they just went ahead with his wishes

Do you just let residents run extension cords out their windows?

Sure, why not? They would also be handy for running elevators, powering the pumps for the plumbing in buildings big enough that higher floors have no water pressure, lighting and heating for the lobby at least...

Why not? Because having 100 residents run 100 extension cords out their windows to the streetside generator is street is unsafe. Even ignoring the overloading "Look mom, we can plug in the refrigerator, this space heater *and* my hair dryer" issues, the generator is not on the same ground plane as the building so there's an additional shock hazard unless you get an electrician to ground the generator to the building ground (and possibly installing a local grounding rod at the generator, depending on local regulations)

But if they wanted to power the elevators, it's not as simple as just buying a long extension cord at Home Depot. The elevators in my building run on 480V 3 Phase power and are on a 150A breaker, so they may need a few hundred feet of 00 or 000 gauge cable just to hook into the electrical panel. I don't know if it's even legal to run unprotected 480V cables on the floor, or to run an energized panel with the covers off if there's no cable inlet to hook up the cables.

And, of course, you need electricians to do all of this work - electricians that could be working on repairing damage that's preventing entire buildings from being energized instead of hooking up temporary power for an elevator that might be used for 24 hours before power comes back up.

Because that isn't selling something at an excessive price. Just because I'm not allowed to sell you something at an excessive price doesn't mean i have to give it to you.

While technically correct, you miss the entire point. Doing that does seem popular around here. It's like the average Slashdotter thinks that missing the point entirely is the most effective way to disagree with it. Well, that's not so. Moving on...

The point is, great concern about whether two adults should be engaged in a voluntary market transaction is not so different from concern about whether two adults should be engaged in a charitable donation.

What they should be able and what they can legally do don't have to be the same.

I should be able use marijuana, but legally I can not. I should be able to keep and bear a fully automatic assault rifle but legally I can not. I should be able to use the services of a prostitute, but legally I can not. I should be able to commit adultery, but legally I can not. I should be able to sell my property for an unconscionably excessive price during a declared emergency, but legally I can not.

I wonder if he will go after Ebay sellers too. After all, an auction is by definition a price maximizing enterprise.

And I also wonder if he will go after the out-of-state people who came from hundreds of miles away, just so they could make money selling generators and hard-to-find provisions. After all, those people probably incurred significant expenses buying inventory and driving to New York on such short notice.

If your not young, female, pretty, of the correct race, able to send a photo and willing to engage in a list of 'acts'.... NO gas for you.
Most parts of the world would offer gas to *anyone* who waits in line - with a police office keeping order until the tanks are empty for a fair cash payment.

But they don't do that, you fucking retard. You think people get rich by pissing away their money?

Katrina? You mean the one where government troops kept people from leaving New Orleans at gunpoint? That wasn't we the people doing that. It was dumbshit government officials. Also funny that you talk about Katrina, with it's death toll of 1833, while a few years ago France allowed 3000 old people to die from a fucking heat wave. Just because you see what America does more often doesn't make it worse t

I wonder if you even realize how many people thoughts like that have slaughtered in just the past century?

Saying "this is not an economics issue" is like saying "this is not a physics issue" in the middle of a plane crash. If there was ever a time you wanted to know and follow the laws of economics, it is during a disaster. If there was ever a time you wanted to know and follow the laws of physics, it's during a plane crash, It might just save you life, and those of others. Hell, if you can reach the